Calling the debt not paid screws jack. As if Stacy had declined the ticket he could of sold it for €24. So now jack is out €44 for a €20 debt. How is that fair?
Read the scenario. Jack still has the hard ticket–both of them are entering on the guest list. Stacy had agreed in principle to taking the ticket, but ultimately she doesn’t. Jack can still sell it. He may even come out ahead, if he sells for face value, pays his debt, and pockets the difference.
Again, it’s Stacy’s call. If Jack does not in fact put money in her hand–and she does not in fact use the hard ticket purchased for (at least) the value of the debt–then nobody else can write off Jack’s debt to her.
If I were Stacy, I would consider it paid, but if I were Jack, I would still give Stacy cash (her option to refuse it).
It’s 20 euros, not 200.
No Jack doesn’t still have the ticket, once its promised to her its hers and the debt is settled, At this point Jack cannot sell the ticket because it is no longer his. If Stacy doesn’t use the ticket its her loss.
Would you still feel the same if he physically handed her the ticket when he offers it to her?
Edit: Also i see no reason from the senario as written that he couldn’t be physically giving her the ticket. “He offers, she accepts” does not preclude an in person transaction.
But the point is, she already gave up that right when she said she’d accept the ticket in lieu of payment. The fact that she doesn’t need it is irrelevant. If, as you interpret the scenario, Jack hasn’t physically given her the ticket yet, that’s all he has to do to pay off the debt.
It’s like buying a stock. When it becomes worthless after the fact, you don’t get to turn it back in or demand your money back. Once you make the sales contract, it’s finished.
Don’t get me wrong. Jack CAN still pay her real money if he chooses to do so, but due to the contract she made by saying she’d accept the ticket, he doesn’t have to.
ETA:And yes, as unfair as it is, she can see him giving her the ticket as a sleazy thing, and it can hurt the friendship. But that has nothing to do with whether the debt was properly repaid.
Yes.
So this is a buy one get one free, they both got into the show for 24 instead of 48, I think Stacey owes Jack $4!
Once they got inside to the bar, who bought the first round?
If I was Stacy I’d absolutely consider the debt paid because yes, I agreed to the renegotiated terms (ie Jack paying for her ticket). However, if it was me, I’m not sure I’d have accepted that bargain in the first place - Jack has solved his problem of suddenly having an asset on his hands (the extra ticket) which ordinarily can only have its face value realised if he goes to the trouble of becoming a ticket tout However, instead is using it to pay off his debt at no cost. How nice for him! So it’s like “this extra ticket is useless to me because I already have one now but maybe you’d pay the full asking price for it, sparing me the hassle of having to hawk it around if I can bothered to do that and then we’re quits?”
If I was Jack, I’d have just given her the spare ticket as an unexpected freebie and still considered the debt to stand. Weirdly, now I think about it, if Jack had done this in the first place, I (as Stacy) would have instantly insisted on the fact that naww, we were now cool about the debt and just laughed at the final irony at the door of both tickets being free.
Oooh, I think actually that’s the source of my unease. In the scenario, he asks her to go along and she says sure. Then there’s the grey area where presumably Jack introduces the notion of ‘so you’ll be needing to buying a ticket, right? And it just so happens I have one I can, in essence, sell you - this extra one I don’t need which will also settle our debt’. So much depends on what else I know of Jack but I guess in a person I didn’t know well, I’d wonder a bit if I’d been asked to the concert in the first place just so he could kill two birds with one stone, that is pay off his debt and extract the value from the extra ticket rather than wanting my company at the gig in its own right.
So anyway, my longwinded conclusion is that the deal’s fair but somehow I keep going back to double check just because it all seems to feel a bit manipulative somehow. Even though it isn’t. It’s also why I’d have just given Jack the $20 in the first place and not wanted it back because (as I’ve just demonstrated with the workings of my own mind), lending money can really bring to the fore some very unpleasant anxieties and fears.
What happened to the Jack’s physical ticket… did he sell it? If so he should probably offer half to Stacy or did he not get that option (he’s entering the venue so perhaps he didn’t get the chance) in which case Stacy has recieved goods (entry to the concert) in exchange for the debt as agreed earlier. Debt is paid.
There is the Kantian aspect of good will to be considered… Did Jack know about the plus 1 guest list, did he then knowingly ask Stacy in order to save money for himself or was it simply good fortune that it worked out that way?
I don’t understand how this worked: Jack bought one ticket to the show for 24 Euros. He agreed with Stacy to sell her that ticket for 20 Euros basically - she gets the ticket, his debt to her is discharged. At this point Jack will have to buy another 24 Euro ticket to see the show. They show up to the show, they find out that Stacy’s ticket (which Jack originally bought) allows two people to see the show for the price of one ticket (24 Euros). No one gets in free. They both see the show for 24 Euros.
At this point, if I were Stacy, I would think that Jack still owes me 20 Euros minus 12 Euros (the cost per person to see the show) which equals 8 Euros. Jack doesn’t get to see the show for free plus have his debt discharged.
ETA: That’s the letter-of-the-law standpoint. As a friend, I’d probably say buy me a round and call it even at this point, too.
I misunderstood too. I missed the part where it said Stacy agreed to the ticket in lieu of cash. So I would need to change my vote to “It has been re-paid.”
The agreement itself is a weird one, but having been made, I’d consider it fulfilled.
I picked the wrong choice. Oops.
I’d say, if I’m Jack, here’s your ticket. Do you agree that pays your debt? If she says yes (sounds like she did), then the guest list thing is superfluous. If giving her the +1 negates his payment of the debt, then screw her, Jack doesn’t use the +1 for her.
That’s because you’ve misunderstood the scenario. Jack bought an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, admit-one ticket. In an unrelated move, he was then put on the guest list. So he had his guest list spot (which, unbeknownst to him at the time, admitted two) as well as his ticket.
No, that’s not what happened. Jack bought a ticket for 24 Euros intending to see the band himself. Then he found out he’d been put on the guest list (maybe he knows someone in the band’s organization or won a contest) so he can get in to the show for free. This isn’t some special bonus attached to the physical ticket Jack bought, it’s an invitation for Jack personally. He doesn’t need the ticket he paid for anymore, so he offers it to Stacy as payment for his debt to her. But when they get to the show, they discover that Jack was actually entitled to bring a guest for free – he was down on the guest list as “Jack and guest”. So it would actually be possible for three people to get in to the show with only the one ticket having been purchased by Jack.
Since Jack didn’t know he was entitled to bring a guest I don’t think that really matters when it comes to judging his behavior, though. He couldn’t have asked Stacy to come as his free guest because he didn’t know he could bring a free guest. If he had known then he might have invited someone else and still given his extra ticket to Stacy in lieu of cash. However, I do think that since they only find out at the venue that Jack could bring a free guest then the proper thing to do would be for him to have Stacy as his guest (there’s a good chance this will be a better seat than the one Jack originally paid for) and let her decide what to do with the extra 24 Euro ticket. She did effectively pay for that ticket, so she should get to choose whether to try to sell it, invite another friend at the last minute, or keep it as a souvenir.
Oh, I didn’t vote because, like Promethea, I feel that Stacy did get what she agreed to but that the whole thing is kind of sleazy on Jack’s part. Stacy apparently wasn’t even intending to go to this concert until Jack asked. If he’d paid her back in cash she could have spent the money on other things that were more important to her. Unless this was a really in-demand concert then giving the ticket to Stacy was a lot easier for Jack than trying to re-sell it. The one time I tried to sell an extra ticket outside a show (the friend who was going to use it had to cancel) the best offer I got was only about 1/5 the face value.
What was the band?
Consider this similar scenario: I owe tygre $25. On Sunday I went to a charity bowl-a-thon and put in for a prize draw for a $25 gift certificate to tygre’s favorite restaurant. Later that day I get a phone call that I’ve won the certificate, and I tell tygre I’ll give her what I won in lieu of the $25. When I get the envelope in the mail, I find that the prize was actually two $25 gift certificates to the restaurant.
Do I owe tygre one of the gift certificates, or both of them? One is sufficient to pay the debt, but I did say I was going to give her what I won in the prize draw, which was actually two certificates.
(Note: part of this actually happened this week–the part about the two gift certificates instead of one. tygre would have just taken the money out of my wallet. :D)
I think it was shady of Jack to offer her the ticket instead of the money the first place, considering that he doesn’t even know if she wants to see the band or is taking the ticket to be polite. In essence, he’s trying to discharge his debt by saving himself the trouble of having to sell the ticket.
If Stacy agreed to take the ticket in lieu of repayment, then the debt is discharged, but I’d be annoyed if I were Stacy because of the aforementioned shadiness.
Oh, okay, so Jack has bought himself a ticket, then finds out later that he can go for free, so offers the purchased ticket to Stacy, then finds out at the door that he has TWO free tickets (essentially). Hmm. In that case, I think Stacy is kind of stuck with the original deal - she agreed that Jack giving her the purchased ticket fulfilled her debt, so the “plus one” at the door is moot.
While technically Jack still owes Stacy 20 pounds/Euros (sorry, don’t know which key is the symbol), among friends this kind of thing happens all the time and is generally considered a wash. At least it is among my friends. Sometimes I buy drinks for someone who is low on cash that day, sometimes they buy me drinks, sometimes I loan them a few dollars and a few weeks later they invite me to dinner at their home and I consider that enough repayment. I guess it just depends on the relationship.
Surely all the “He still owes” people are misunderstanding the scenario, because I can’t believe I’m losing this poll. The above quote is all that matters.
Jack can admit 3 people.
Stacy agreed that admission to the concert is sufficient to settle the debt. It doesn’t matter if Jack lets her in under the guest or with the ticket. The only confusion here is that the ticket goes unused, and it seems like Stacy owns the ticket.
THIS IS WRONG.
Jack still owns the ticket. He traded the debt for the ticket but then he traded the guest slot for the ticket. Either that or Stacy uses the ticket to get into the show and Jack still owns the guest slot. But the point is that Sally does not own both the ticket and the guest slot, regardless of what manner they actually used to enter the concert.
Had there been no “burning” of an admission (i.e. 2 people for 3 admissions), there’d be no confusion. Consider this: If they knew ahead of time about the extra slot, who would be entitled to bring another friend, Jack or Stacy? Clearly Jack. It’s his +1 entry, not Stacy’s. He doesn’t give both the slot and the ticket to Stacy.
Stacy gets into the concert for free. That pays off the debt. The fact that there’s a burned ticket doesn’t factor into it at all. I think you guys are forgetting that in order for Stacy to move from “ticket holder” to “guest list”, she has to give the ticket back to Jack. Otherwise, Jack has given her both a guest slot and a ticket…which means Stacy has the best friend in the world!
So? She agreed to go in exchange for debt. Might I remind you that the ticket was 24 euro and the debt only 20? In game-theory world, Stacy would actually owe 4 euro to Jack. But they’re friends so they wave their hands at that and agree to call it even. Consider it a surcharge to Jack by Stacy for accepting a “lesser” form of payment.
This is like that Seinfeld episode where Jerry owes the annoying guy a dinner in exchange for the Armani suit and the guy keeps saying it doesn’t count over and over.
Jack’s paid his debt!